Ross Scott’s “Stop Killing Games” initiative — a campaign to make it illegal for publishers to disable customer-purchased games remotely — has officially hit 1 million signatures. That’s a huge win, at least on paper. But even with this milestone, I’m still unsure about the campaign itself.
This isn’t about dunking on Ross or endorsing the backlash. I just want to explain why I haven’t signed it and why I think the initiative, even if successful, might not lead to the kind of change people hope for.
What Is “Stop Killing Games”?
The initiative is an EU Citizens’ Initiative (ECI), which gives it more legal weight than a typical petition. It asks the European Commission to pass laws preventing publishers from disabling access to games without first providing a playable version, typically understood as an offline mode or private server.
The problem Ross is trying to fix is real: Games you paid for can vanish. Servers shut down, DRM checks fail, and even single-player titles can become unplayable. This has happened with games like The Crew, Battleborn, and NBA 2K.
But ECIs are difficult. Since 2012, over 100 have been submitted. Only 10 reached one million signatures, and only 3 led to actual legislative outcomes. Even then, the EU Commission is only required to “consider” the petition, not act on it.
Structural Challenges
- The initiative must reach 1 million verified signatures across 7 EU countries.
- It must focus on a single issue (“kill switches” in this case).
- Word count and format limitations restrict how detailed it can be.
Problems with the Initiative
1 – Vague Language
Due to EU rules, Ross had to oversimplify. The initiative doesn’t clarify what games it applies to (e.g., MMOs, live-service games, mobile games) or distinguish between a total shutdown and a feature loss. That vagueness leads to misinterpretation by critics and supporters alike.
Ross has acknowledged that the vagueness is partly strategic, but comparing it to more successful ECIs like “End the Cage Age,” the difference in legal precision is stark.
2 – Misalignment Between Public and Legal Messaging
Ross often expands on the initiative in videos and streams, but lawmakers only see the formal submission. The gap between what’s being campaigned for and what’s formally proposed is significant.
For instance, Ross has said free-to-play games aren’t affected, but also that games with microtransactions are. That contradiction would include most free-to-play and live-service games, yet the text doesn’t clarify this.
He also claims the initiative is about game preservation, though it doesn’t reference that directly.
3 – Framing and Communication
Ross’s passion can come across as aggressive. His portrayal of the EU as corrupt and his dismissive tone toward critics or developers who raise valid concerns alienate potential allies. Phrasing along the lines of “you’re either with us or against us” discourages nuance.
At times, the movement feels less like consumer advocacy and more like a reactionary internet crusade. That tone pushes away developers, journalists, and everyday players who might otherwise support the goal.
Drama and Distraction
One flashpoint was Ross’s public feud with PirateSoftware (Thor), who criticised the initiative’s vagueness and feasibility. Rather than constructive engagement, the discourse devolved into personal attacks.
Thor was vilified, and many supporters treated him as the reason why the initiative supposedly was failing rather than engaging with his points.
This kind of scapegoating distracts from the initiative’s real issues: unclear scope, lack of legal precision, and failure to address edge cases like licensing restrictions or bankrupt developers.
On top of that, it attributes the fact that the signatures plateaued for quite some time solely to PirateSoftware’s coverage rather than the lack of marketing or the fact that Ross only spoke to his audience and adjacent communities rather than trying to expand the initiative’s reach further beyond.
The Bigger Issue: Ownership
The core problem isn’t, however, kill switches – it’s that we don’t truly own digital games. Most games are licensed, not sold, giving publishers the power to revoke access at any time. This structure underpins the very problem SKG wants to fix.
Instead of challenging the licensing model, the initiative focuses on symptoms. Legal cases like UsedSoft v. Oracle and the Digital Markets Act show there’s potential to push for deeper reform. SKG, unfortunately, doesn’t pursue that path at all.
The initiative aims to treat the symptom rather than fix the underlying cause… and that’s a pretty big problem.
Why I Haven’t Signed
I do support the idea: Games you buy shouldn’t disappear. On top of that, games are an art form, and art should be preserved.
But I don’t trust this initiative to produce clear, effective, or fair legislation. The proposal is too vague, the public communication is inconsistent, and the tone is too polarising.
When asking questions about the initiative, I encountered scorn and hostility rather than discussion. That lack of openness makes it hard to engage in good faith. Movements that rely on anger over clarity rarely lead to good laws.
Until the campaign becomes more transparent, inclusive, and pragmatic, I’ll stay on the sidelines… is what I wanted to say, but honestly, the deadline is fast approaching and the brigading has yet to turn into anything… better. It feels so incredibly toxic. Of course, it’s not all of the supporters that are like this, but the most vocal ones are seemingly the most toxic in existence.
Any genuine question asked is met with people claiming that you don’t understand how this is going to save gaming as a whole. A lot of these folks don’t seem to understand that ECIs don’t do much, at all, and that this isn’t solving the issue they think it does.
Oh well.
I hope the initiative gives them everything they ask for, but none of what they want.
This post was originally written by Dan Dicere from Indiecator.
If you see this article anywhere other than Indiecator.org then this article has been scraped. Please let me know about this via E-Mail.
Indiecator 
Leave a comment